The absolutely criminal thing about heat decarbonisation/heat transition politics is the total ignorance by policy makers of the value it will bring to the UK. Ignoring the carbon reductions, it will save money and pay for itself through the reductions in gas imports (thread).
Currently GB is very reliant on fossil gas, more than almost all countries apart from the Netherlands. This is because we went big for gas in the 60s and 70s after finding North Sea gas. But that time is over. We now import over 50% of gas and that's expected to increase.
So, we import over half of our gas. In 2019 that equated to 518 terawatt hours.
Based on Ofgem market data, wholesale gas forward prices have been well above 45p/therm for early this year: ofgem.gov.uk/energy-data-an…
Taking a conservative cost of 45p/therm means a megawatt hour of gas is around £15.35 which equates to £15,354,693 per terawatt hour.
That means the UK, this year, will be spending over £7,953,731,191 on gas imports. Let's call it £8 billion. Every year gas imports increase, so does that number and it could be double by around 2040, depending on gas prices.
That £8 billion annual cost is not far off the @theCCCuk's suggested additional £10 billion per year for heat in the net zero scenario, a scenario which will reduce gas imports. The gas import costs will soon overtake the decarb costs. d423d1558e1d71897434.b-cdn.net/wp-content/upl…
Also worth noting that the @theCCCuk numbers behind the 6th carbon budget advice also show over the longer term once energy efficiency/heat decarb is done, bill would be lower for everyone. theccc.org.uk/publication/si…
And there's something additional, productivity increases associated with inward investment i.e. various multiplier effects that occur from spending money internally rather than just importing gas. I'm not sure this has been quantified well/at all @HectorPollitt?
So overall, not decarbonising ASAP represents a huge cost, locking in gas imports which are expected to further increase and missing an real investment/productivity opportunity.
Hence some of my thoughts behind this blog: blogs.exeter.ac.uk/energy/2021/02…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I think I've now managed to digest all the Times pieces today (I was featured in one of them) and thought I should set out my stall in a short thread. So, last week The Times featured an 'opinion piece' suggesting No 10 were very interested in hydrogen:
I was interviewed following the submission of a letter to the editor, not from me, but from another academic. csrf.ac.uk/2020/09/letter…. A shortened version of this letter featured today.
Focusing on the issue of incumbency, we investigate the emergence of a low carbon gas coalition in the UK. We investigate what the coalition has been doing and the messages it has been promoting primarily through political lobbying and policy engagement.
Converting the gas grid to low carbon gas is presented as *the* option for heat decarbonisation in areas with a gas grid at the expense of other options such as heat networks and heat pumps.
Don't know about you, but I've spent the morning creating UK emission trajectories for heat. That shaded bit is the cumulative emissions of not acting. The lower line is an emissions trajectory based on heat pump deployment (1/4).
Basically the point is, morally we need to act now, it's not just about net zero but the time taken on the journey to get there. Hence, rapidly deploy energy efficiency, heat pumps and heat networks at scale. Not enough time to wait to see what hydrogen might be able to do (2/4)
We can always change course back to H2 later (if we wanted and after we learn more) but there isn't time for delay for potential options and known technologies reduce emissions now (3/4).
There's a real humdinger of a statement in the report behind this claim which assumes that hydrogen is *the* technology for existing homes (1/5). You ready?
'However, electric technologies such as heat pumps are
unlikely to be able to meet the elevated heat demand requirements of the existing housing stock. We have therefore assumed hydrogen will be used to
decarbonise this existing housing stock.' (2/5).
Further in: 'However, we have assumed electrification is not
suitable for older housing stock based on Element Energy and E4Tech’s Cost Analysis of Future Heat Infrastructure report which states: (3/5)
Increasing heat pump coefficients of performance drastically increase the cost effectiveness of heat pumps. The UK has a long way to go in terms of installed performance but with increases in skills and further technical development there is room for some optimism here (1/4).
However, best performance requires low flow temperatures which requires efficient buildings and careful installs. UK experience has not been great, see @EnergySvgTrust field trials. Much of this was down to install/specification issues, not the actual appliances (2/4).
The @NatInfraCom heat modelling assumed sCOP of 2.5 reflecting prior experience. This clearly has a knock on for costs (lower COP =less heat out for your electricity in). We should be aiming for way better than that (3/4).
It's a real shame that these guys can't use twitter as a forum for discussion but instead lower it to personal and unjustified statements like this. Already retweeted by their CEO.
For the record (again) I've never said electrification would be easy. But my expertise suggests there is a lot more to like about it than this 100% hydrogen world being pushed by quite clearly vested interests. Hybrid combos may also have value.
The thread in question was actually on a specific issue on ease of hydrogen conversion being linked to town gas. I am not the only one saying this is wrong: newpower.info/2020/02/the-fi…